[ppml] Follow on to 2003-4, and suggested change.

[Lea Roberts]

Leo -

I am curious about your base assumption here. What will be your criteria
for deciding when to "assign" a /64 instead of a /48?  Specifically, are
you thinking of a /64 for other than DSL or modem connections?

						thanks,  /Lea

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Leo Bicknell wrote:

>
> One aspect of 2003-4 was a waver of 5.1.1.d (in
> http://www.arin.net/policy/ipv6_policy.html) which states:
>
>   d) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other
>      organizations within two years.
>
> Down in section 5.4.1, Assignment address space size, we have
> guidelines for /48, /64, and /128 assignments.
>
> Working for a provider who is likely to make a lot of /64 assignments,
> at least relative to /58 assignments the wording of section d leaves
> an immediate problem.  /64's don't count.
>
> So, leaving the 200 as is for today, I propose the following new text
> for 5.1.1.d to replace the existing 5.1.1.d:
>
>   d) have a plan for making at least 200 /1 to /64 assignments
>      under the rules defined in section 5.4, Assignment.
>
> This specifically excludes "oddballs" (eg, the /128 case) and more
> closely makes it mean (translated from policy to English) "we want
> you to get 200 other organizations using IPv6".  The only downside
> of the fully inclusive language is that it also includes section
> 5.4.3, which are internal assignments, but between the fact that
> it makes the policy fully consistent and I think 200 is too high
> that doesn't really bother me.
>
> I'd specifically prefer this thread not go too deep into the
> discussion of the 200 number, if we want to change that number let's
> start a different thread and do it independent of this change so
> the two don't share fate if they come to a meeting.
>
> Comments?
>
> --
>        Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
>         PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
> Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
>